reply
- Feature
- Like
Science and a belief in a higher power can go hand in hand. As a scientist, I believe there is a logical, empirical explanation to everything, yet it's still comforting to think that there's a higher power overseeing all, every atom, every genetic mutation... I can't foresee anyone proving or disproving that anytime soon, so I don't think God is obsolete yet!
reply
- Feature
- Like
Interesting question since just last week the Templeton Foundation has awarded five million dollars to faculty of UC Riverside for a study of the afterlife.
reply
Science has not yet made God obsolete for those who demand more stringent proof, but there is a perfectly RATIONAL explanation for morality. It's consistent, unlike the Abrahamic religions. it doesn't say: Do not kill, unless it's in war or unless government is acting in your name while exercising the death penalty or in eliminating abortionists or in denying proper health care for women or in allowing starving children to die hungry and malnourished.
- Feature
- Like
Science has not yet made God obsolete for those who demand more stringent proof, but there is a perfectly RATIONAL explanation for morality. It's consistent, unlike the Abrahamic religions. it doesn't say: Do not kill, unless it's in war or unless government is acting in your name while exercising the death penalty or in eliminating abortionists or in denying proper health care for women or in allowing starving children to die hungry and malnourished.
It says" garbage in = garbage out. It explains why we should treat ourselves and one another betteer. Why? Because actions of consequences. For every actions, there is an equal and proportionate reaction. AND- here's the kicker. What you put out there comes back at you because life is a mirror.
Consider "What the Bleep - Down the Rabbit Hole". We are VERY powerful beings who, through our ignorance and failure to develop rational thinking skills, are doing some very damaging things to ourselves. This, of course, if a choice that a rational mind would not participate in.
reply
- Feature
- Like
The only science-based argument for the existence of God is psychological science. God is a shared psychological delusion that gives people hope and makes them feel safe. Although I don't believe in God I have no problem with people who do. Everyone needs something to believe in and if that is God then that's fine.
reply
There are no scientific reasons to believe in a given religion. There is simply no evidence. And because one is not required to disprove a negative, religion (while not disproven) has been moved into the category of speculation, where it belongs. Science handily explains the natural world, to include human behavior and morality. Religion pales by comparison.
- Feature
- Like
There are no scientific reasons to believe in a given religion. There is simply no evidence. And because one is not required to disprove a negative, religion (while not disproven) has been moved into the category of speculation, where it belongs. Science handily explains the natural world, to include human behavior and morality. Religion pales by comparison.
That said, belief in a religion is not entirely a choice, per se. For many, there is a very strong drive to believe they will transcend mortality. To face mortality, for many, is utterly terrifying, and a great cause of cognitive dissonance. These people should be forgiven, so long as their religion does not cause them to act in a way that is not considered moral. In most cases, belief in the supernatural is a mere foma.
reply
- Feature
- Like
Science cannot prove a thing does not exist, much less prove a spiritual belief does or does not exist.
reply
- Feature
- Like
I think science has made our traditional view of God obsolete, but the bigger pull of something greater, science almost illustrates.
reply
- Feature
- Like
There are precisely zero science-based arguments for God. There are, however, many pseudo-scientific arguments for God.
reply
Here is an excerpt from the Message to the World's Religious Leaders
- Feature
- Like
Here is an excerpt from the Message to the World's Religious Leaders
by the Universal House of Justice:
"...religion and science are the two indispensable knowledge systems
through which the potentialities of consciousness develop. Far from
being in conflict with one another, these fundamental modes of the mind’s
exploration of reality are mutually dependent and have been most productive
in those rare but happy periods of history when their complementary nature
has been recognized and they have been able to work together.
The insights and skills generated by scientific advance will have always
to look to the guidance of spiritual and moral commitment to ensure
their appropriate application; religious convictions, no matter how cherished
they may be, must submit, willingly and gratefully, to impartial testing
by scientific methods."
reply
Some say , the first Gods were female...after all, they bleed and do not die .
- Feature
- Like
Some say , the first Gods were female...after all, they bleed and do not die .
I don't think there is any scientific evidence of God other than the existence of the universe and the existence of human beings attribute of consciousness to wonder and reason about the universe :))
reply
well, I wonder, are there any good God-based arguements for science? Does the belief in God make the belief in science obsolete?
- Feature
- Like
well, I wonder, are there any good God-based arguements for science? Does the belief in God make the belief in science obsolete?
Morals and religion, IMHO, are bothsubjective and relative. IMHO, rleigion and science serve the same "purpose": they are humankinds explanation for the unexplainable.
reply
- Feature
- Like
No no no. In fact, the very fact of science provides what I believe to be irrefutable evidence of God. Our whole vision of the universe is based on the assumption that we're rational, that is, that our observation of patterns in the universe allows us to know how the universe actually works. But if all of our thoughts are COMPLETELY the result of random and non-rational sources, then we have no reason to trust our own mind. In fact, we disprove the thoughts of people using this string of reasoning all the time. If a man testified against you in a murder trial, that may be very well, but if we were proved of his insanity, then that would discount his testimony. His insanity is caused by chemical and physical imbalances in his brain. So, if we are to trust that we can know anything objective, we need to have reason that wasn't caused by a physical source.
reply
- Feature
- Like
This basically translates to yet another paraphrasing of "Can you justify morality without God?" which has been answered a million times, yes. As for whether belief in God is obsolete, how does a belief become obsolete? And finally, no, if you are using a definition of "God" typical of that used by most people, there are no science based arguments for his/it's existence.
reply
Yes. These beliefs are rooted entirely in our animal nature and in our environment. Morality, just like religion, is subjective and relative.
- Feature
- Like
Yes. These beliefs are rooted entirely in our animal nature and in our environment. Morality, just like religion, is subjective and relative.
God is irrelevant to science. This does not mean that science is irrelevant to god, since the god you believe in now is different to, say, the god of an 11th Century monk, entirely because science has "allowed" god to retreat into the metaphysical, almost to the point of probability's end..
There are no scientific arguments for god. Indeed, there is not even a scientific argument for singularity as a starting place.
reply
If you're waiting for science to 'prove' that God exists, you'll be waiting a LONG time.
- Feature
- Like
If you're waiting for science to 'prove' that God exists, you'll be waiting a LONG time.
(Not because God doesn't exist, but because God would be too clever for that to happen!)
reply
- Feature
- Like
No, science does not hold all the answers. As far as I can tell, the strong suit of science is raising more questions.
reply
- Feature
- Like
At the risk of angering LiftYrSkinnyFists once again, I think that the problem with the question of obsolescence would be a definition of God. In many ways, God could be compared to the philosophical One or scientific Truth.
reply
1. Yes.
- Feature
- Like
1. Yes.
2. No, an understanding of science has made god obsolete. Facts require no belief.
3. Aside from a dictionary. The only thing that meets the definition for a god is the universe itself and there is no proof that it's self aware. So worship would be pointless.
reply
- Feature
- Like
